Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

There is no A.I.

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

441–450 of 523 posts

Re: There is no A.I.

#441

Post by jackmott42 »

fauxpause_ wrote: post #419
FeepingCreature wrote: post #409

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems you're drawing an arbitrary distinction between "internal" and "external" state. The context window is state. Doesn't matter where it is.

If I talk to Alice about my day, and then Bob reads the transcript and I ask him about our conversation, and he has no idea that he wasn’t Alice, Bob does not have internal state. He can continue the conversation. There is a brief moment of constructing some state to construct the answer. But there is literally nothing persisting and Bob wouldn’t flinch at all if we change details in the conversation history on the n…

just zoom out and consider the text box you are typing in part of the system, and then that text box is the state.

Re: There is no A.I.

#442

Post by fauxpause_ »

sdenton4 wrote: post #429
fauxpause_ wrote: post #421

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We can surely construct a different definition if you want to win a semantic argument. But at the end of the day these LLMs have no clue what you just said and what it just said, after it’s done speaking.

Why is that a prerequisite for intelligence? Suppose we could upload + fully simulate a human mind. Now suppose that we chose to spin it up, run it briefly, then throw away all the state every time we wanted to interact with it. Would the choice to throw away the internal state mean it wasn't intelligent? LLMs run in an autoregressive mode for inference. We can concatenate conversations, but choose not to because shi…

A human mind works by cross referencing sensory inputs with internal state, which may result in answering a question through some sort of reasoning, which may resemble the architecture of a neural net.

An LLM is stateless function that answers a question. It constructs a working representation of the question. It cannot be aware of itself because there is nothing to be aware of. It is a process, not a thing.

Intelligence and self aware are fluffy and poorly defined. But you can’t be self aware if you don’t have a self. And a representation of a prompt is not a self. I don’t think we should consider anything that does not exist through continuous time to be intelligent personally.

Re: There is no A.I.

#443

Post by fauxpause_ »

jackmott42 wrote: post #441
fauxpause_ wrote: post #419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I talk to Alice about my day, and then Bob reads the transcript and I ask him about our conversation, and he has no idea that he wasn’t Alice, Bob does not have internal state. He can continue the conversation. There is a brief moment of constructing some state to construct the answer. But there is literally nothing persisting and Bob wouldn’t flinch at all if we change details in the conversation history on the n…

just zoom out and consider the text box you are typing in part of the system, and then that text box is the state.

That is at best an internal state representation of the text, not of the entity on the other end.

Re: There is no A.I.

#444

Post by roflyear »

jameshart wrote: post #395
roflyear wrote: post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stop redefining things to support your argument. "The basic operations under arithmetic are addition and subtraction, division and multiplication"

Right, but when you say an LLM can’t do basic arithmetic you’re presumably talking about mental arithmetic, right?

No.

Re: There is no A.I.

#445

Post by vimax »

uoaei wrote: post #376
vimax wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me it shows how fundamental language is to intelligence. Not just that LLMs are very capable by themselves, but significantly improve speech and image models. We’ll need to break out of the Chomsky hierarchies and develop some new theories of language. Vocal communication isn’t unique to humans, a new theory should be more broadly applicable to non human and non vocal languages. I’m excited to see what big questio…

You're just describing information theory. Every message is contextualized within the codebooks used to encode/decode it. Sometimes we call that codebook "language", sometimes it uses another representation.

Yes, we should develop a new theory of language based on an information theory approach rather than a discrete symbol approach, or maybe something involving both.

But you can’t say information theory as it stands gives us a completely satisfactory model of human language. Something will need to be built on top of it.

Re: There is no A.I.

#446

Post by ogogmad »

newswasboring wrote: post #432
ogogmad wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You probably used GPT-3.5. That said, I didn't manage to get GPT-4 to calculate 36,330 * 26,951 correctly. I suggested casting out 9s, casting out 11s, doing long multiplication, reversing the digits - nothing. I have a theory that it does arithmetic badly because the logic goes right-to-left, when LLMs write left-to-right. If the digits were to be reversed, it might not make as many mistakes. I ran out of attempts b…

I just had the following conversation on chatGPT > Human: what is 36,330 26,951 * (input is expressed in reverse post fix notation) > chatGPT: To evaluate this expression using reverse Polish notation, we need to use a stack to keep track of the intermediate results. Here's how we can evaluate the expression: 1. Read the first number "36,330" and push it onto the stack. 2. Read the second number "26,951" and push it…

You should ask it to show its working. The problem is that it uses a fixed amount of thinking for each character - and it writes left to right - while long multiplication is computed right to left. Past a certain number of digits, the amount of "thinking" needed to compute long multiplication in the wrong order (left to right) increases without bound -- accuracy suffers as a result.

A tangential point: Note that multiplication of decimal numbers _has_ to start with the rightmost digit to be done accurately. Consider x = 2/3 + 1/3 = 0.6(6) + 0.3(3), all digits repeating infinitely many times, so there's no rightmost digit: Notice that whichever digit you choose for x before the decimal point (either 0 or 1) could be wrong if you change any digit of 1/3. This is called the Table Maker's Dilemma.

The second paragraph is a tangent. My point was made in the first paragraph.

You said: "I dont think this is about notation" - Why did you ever think it was?

Re: There is no A.I.

#447

Post by ummonk »

scotty79 wrote: post #437
danielbln wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have no idea why a software system with very few physical constraints and which can iterate incredibly fast might improve faster than an algorithm that has to drive a physical vehicle through a world full of edge cases?

The fact that we have zero awareness about the edge cases in the world of general intelligence doesn't give us right to think there aren't any. The world of the minds isn't necessarily simpler than physical world and we know about it even less. For example think of all cognitive biases and myriad of illusions we have to struggle very hard with when we apply out minds to any problem and want to have any hopes of achie…

The fact that there are edge cases is actually part of what worries AI doomers. We'll be deploying these AI systems to non-critical areas where they can still do a lot of damage.

Re: There is no A.I.

#448

Post by FeepingCreature »

fauxpause_ wrote: post #419
FeepingCreature wrote: post #409

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems you're drawing an arbitrary distinction between "internal" and "external" state. The context window is state. Doesn't matter where it is.

If I talk to Alice about my day, and then Bob reads the transcript and I ask him about our conversation, and he has no idea that he wasn’t Alice, Bob does not have internal state. He can continue the conversation. There is a brief moment of constructing some state to construct the answer. But there is literally nothing persisting and Bob wouldn’t flinch at all if we change details in the conversation history on the n…

This is a misleading analogy because Bob "reads the transcript"; we generally view "reading" as separate from our conscious narrative. However, consider the alternate scenario where Bob "replays the stream of consciousness" from Alice. In that case, we may argue that Bob has conscious continuity from Alice.

The argument would then be that the context window is functionally closer to "replaying a stream of consciousness" than "reading a transcript".

Re: There is no A.I.

#449

Post by MacsHeadroom »

fragsworth wrote: post #403
GistNoesis wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At each new token processed (edit: either if the token comes from the user or has been generated), this dynamic internal state is updated via a formula based on the model parameters and latest processed token. To make this more clear, if you process 1000 tokens the neural network will have gone through a sequence of 1000 states. Each of these states can be probed and analysed, by training a classifier on top of this…

> At the end of the chat session, this internal state is not persisted (but could be recreated from the produced conversation as it is deterministic) You're mistaken about internal state in a chat session. It loses all state after each response . There is internal state for a moment during a single response, but it's not persisted once it's done. Between messages, it has no memory of previous messages in your convers…

I believe you misunderstood the comment you're replying to. It says the internal state could be recreated because it is deterministic, and this is correct.

Assuming you have control of the parameters (seed etc.) you can reproduce the exact internal states by submitting the same tokens with the same parameters over again step-by-step.

With GPT-4 you can do this in the OpenAI Dialogue Playground or via the API.

Re: There is no A.I.

#450

Post by MacsHeadroom »

binbag wrote: post #380
ImHereToVote wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The same reason most humans are. Why are we so bad at math?

Humans are not bad at maths.

On average humans are terrible at Maths. These models give average output when not prompted in a way which carefully moves their next token prediction space into less average portions of the pretrained latent space.
Post reply on HN